To build on that, if there's been one case of having some sort of pardon, I think this is why a review would be good, to look at both the pre- and the post-education aspects of things.
Having a protocol or a formal process in place could ensure that even if a report is issued, and perhaps nothing is found, education can be done about why it was done or things that the member could do in reaction to it. I guess that would be both for the code and for the act that way, but I think it speaks volumes to why a review would be needed.
I'm glad Mr. Calkins did some follow-up about the foundations of the code, which are good, so it's not critical, in the sense that there are no major gaps. Earlier, with Mr. Brassard, you listed some ideas, some suggestions for improvement to the code. Can we get an idea...? I'm not going to hold you to a number and bullet points, but are you talking about numerous small changes? How many are you talking about, in context? That's just for us to understand when—I won't say “if”—it's a matter of the mandatory review.
How many changes do you see yourself recommending?